Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

by VanillaMocha73 58 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Finally-Free

  If a company is going to be held financially liable because of Jehovah's Witness beliefs, then employers should have the legal right to refuse to employ Jehovah's Witnesses, as they could be considered a higher risk. Insurance companies should then have the right to refuse insurance to members of religions who could be considered a higher risk, or charge higher premiums. JWs should not be allowed to preach from door to door because of the risk of slipping on ice and injuring themselves, (as has happened to me) increasing the potential for lawsuits against innocent homeowners.

  But that would be religious discrimination, right?

  What ever happened to the idea of people accepting the consequences of their personal choices?

  W
• 

  inbyathread

  Both chose to be one of Jehovah's Dubs
  
  Both knew of the choices available to them in the event of an accident
  
  Both were ready to die based on their choices.
  
  His wife was ready for him to die for his religion, but evidently wasn't ready for him to die had she known about losing his monthly benefits.
  
  She should accept the decision and walk proudly knowing that her God will see her faith and grant her more privileges in her congregation.
  
  If you are going to be a Jehovah's Witness then be one. But don't go whining that you are being victimized because you are one. (Isn't there a scripture about two? (witnesses) disciples of Jesus being whipped and sent out ordered not to preach about Jesus anymore?) If I remember the rest of that scripture, they rejoiced because of what they had received. I don't see any rejoicing from this widow. All I see is HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRITE.
  
  
  She lost two houses? My My how many does she own?
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  OK, you're swaying me here. I think some black-n-white thinking is trying to reassert itself. Thank you for this, Purps:

  >>The company is responsible for his injury, yes,
  >> But they are not responsible for his death.

  I know that seems obvious, but it jarred me out of my either/or view. They DID pay for his injury. They paid medical bills, AND they paid 70% of his salary for some period. So it's not like they blew it off.

  Consider this: A woman is raped on the job, and it can be shown that the company is responsible for it due to negligence. (Hired a sex-offender, inadequate security, whatever.) As a result of the rape, she becomes pregnant, and just for kicks, it's a tubal pregnancy. She -- based on her conservative Christian views -- refuses an abortion, and dies. Is the company responsible for her death? By our consensus here, I'd say it isn't. And I guess I'd agree.

  Dave
• 

  TD

  Dave,

  But the law refers to "unreasonable refusal" of treatment. The article quotes someone as saying, 'Wilcut's decision was reasonable for a Jehovah's Witness. After all, the judge concluded, while he could have saved his life, doing so would have brought damnation.'

  The term "reasonable" in American law usually refers to normative conduct within society at large. Closely related terms are "Reasonable Man" and "Reasonable Person" which both refer to a hypothetical average citizen.

  The "reasonable person" standard derives from mid 19th century British law and it's purpose was to remove subjectivity from legal standards and make the application of law as objective as possible.

  When you stop and think about it, the conduct of most individuals, no matter how weird is reasonable to them personally. This is why, "Reasonable" doesn't refer to what is reasonable to the individual in question. If that were the case, what is "Reasonable" would be entirely subjective, which would run contrary to the very purpose of the standard.

  What if committing adultery would have saved his life? If he refused, would it still be his fault? Or an act of idolatry? What if renouncing his faith in his god had some medicinal value?

  If there was a real, tangible medical value to any of these things, these would be legitimate questions.
• 

  nelly136

  http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/6DC0AC2739BE6E63862573B000160633?OpenDocument article snipped down to avoid copyright probs

  By Matthew Franck POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU

  Long before Floyd Wilcut's delivery truck inexplicably veered off the road on a route 60 miles from his hometown of Farmington, about 80 miles southeast of St. Louis, his mind had been made up on the issue of blood transfusions.

  Wilcut didn't just profess the doctrine; he lived it. Four years before his work accident, he underwent a bypass heart surgery without a transfusion.

  Like many of the faith, Wilcut carried a folded legal document in his wallet proclaiming his rejection of transfusions and authorizing family members to carry out his wishes on his behalf.

  But that didn't stop doctors from repeatedly asking, and even pleading, that the family reconsider after the accident, which took place in April 2000. Floyd Wilcut, who couldn't speak in the hospital, nodded when doctors asked him if he was refusing the treatment.

  Even so, Sharon Wilcut said, the requests from doctors kept coming, with each offering a more grim assessment of her husband's chances without a transfusion.

  The accident ejected Wilcut from his truck as it flipped in a field. His injuries were serious, including face lacerations and a partial scalping.

  Austin Giffin, an elder in the local Jehovah's Witness congregation and a friend of the family, said those who refuse blood transfusions know the medical risks. He said the doctrine is followed on faith, without any expectation that God will cure those who obey.

  "For us, it's our belief in the creator that makes us do it," Giffin said.

  Five days after the accident, Floyd Wilcut died.

  Later, a doctor who treated Wilcut told a court that the sole cause of death was severe anemia attributed to a lack of a blood transfusion. The death, he said, was "totally preventable."

  REGULAR CHECKS

  There was no legal dispute initially over Wilcut's death.

  Sharon Wilcut began receiving regular checks from her husband's employer covering 70 percent of his salary, or the equivalent of about $290 a week. In addition, the company, Innovative Warehousing, and its insurer, American Manufacturer's Mutual, paid nearly $70,000 in medical bills.
• 

  funkyderek

  AlmostAtheist:

  Why are they not responsible? What if they had allowed him to become exposed to peanuts, but he had an allergy to them and died as a result? They wouldn't have intended to kill him, nor could his death have been reasonably predicted (assuming they didn't know he had the allergy), but wouldn't they still be responsible for his death, since they took the initial action that led to it?

  Bu if he had refused the medical treatment that would have counteracted the allergy, would the company still be responsible? What if he had cut his finger, and refused to clean or bandage the wound or take antibiotics to prevent infection. It would certainly be the company's fault that he cut his finger, but hardly their fault that he got gangrene.

  If I bumped into you while crossing the road and you fell and were hit by a car, I could be held responsible for your death, even if it was an accident. If you fell and refused to get up, and refused all offers of assistance, and then were hit by a car, I really don't think I can be held responsible. You're free to make the choice but you're not free to blame me for it.

  I'm not entirely certain I disagree with you, FD. I'm sort of limping on two different opinions here, waiting for one or the other of them to collapse.

  That's understandable. For me, what swings it is that the doctors believed the sole cause of death was the refusal to accept a blood transfusion. The company paid for the time he would have taken to recover had he not unreasonably refused treatment. I can't see how they should be expected to do more.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>This is why, "Reasonable" doesn't refer to what is reasonable to the individual in question. If that were the case, what is "Reasonable" would be entirely subjective, which would run contrary to the very purpose of the standard.

  Very nice, thank you for this.

  >> >> What if committing adultery would have saved his life?
  >> If there was a real, tangible medical value to any of these things, these would be legitimate questions.

  No, that's not fair. The blood issue just happens to be a doctrine that runs counter to medical practice. And there doesn't happen to be another one in mainstream christianity. But that doesn't make the hypothetical useless.

  But ok, how about this one: What if society at large accepts the idea that it's ok to create a baby for the express purpose of harvesting its organs to save the life of another child? My child's heart is damaged by Disney World, and I expect them to pay for a lifetime of care for him, estimated to cost twenty million dollars. I refuse on religious grounds to use the "harvesting" practice to obtain a new heart for him, so Disney says that is my choice, and they will only pay three million -- the cost of the medically-accepted procedure.

  Should Disney pay the 20 million, or the 3? I think it would be the 3, by the standards we're discussing here.

  Dave
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>If you fell and refused to get up, and refused all offers of assistance, and then were hit by a car, I really don't think I can be held responsible. You're free to make the choice but you're not free to blame me for it.

  I'm with you here to an extent. I'm just not sure how "motive for refusing" comes into play. If at all. See above re: organ harvesting.

  Dave
• 

  nelly136

  if the doctors had forced him to have a transfusion the insurance wouldnt be an issue and they'd be

  suing the doctors for assault instead,$$$$

  seems to me they are getting rather fond of the cash in fast buck clauses these days, if theyre not worth something alive then theyre chasing bucks when theyre dead.$$$$

  there must be some reason they've got a bigwig borg lawyer in. $$$$
• 

  Mary

  "He died faithful," she said. "And that's why I'm still fighting, so he has the right to die upholding Jehovah's law

  Ya. I wonder if she would still feel this way, if and when the Governing Body get 'new light' and make the whole blood doctrine a 'conscience matter'.

  Even so, disagreements over religious liberties have hounded the case as it has moved through the courts. Not paying the family, some say, violates the freedom of worship, since it imposes a financial penalty for adhering to one's beliefs.

  Uh-huh. Kind of like the 'penalty' that ex-Jehovah's Witnesses face if and when they try and leave the religion. You're told that you're 'free to go', but the penalty is the cutting off of your family and life-long friends. The WTS claims that this upholds their Right to Freedom of Religion, yet here's a member who is pissed off that there's a penalty attached to her husband dying from refusing medical treatment. Typical double-standards amongst the Witnesses.

  Sharon Wilcut isn't expecting the court to rule on her case for at least six weeks. She knows it's the end of the line for her legal battles. She is also at the end of her rope financially. While she still collects her husband's Social Security benefits, she has lost two houses and a car.

  It's been 7 years. Perhaps she should have invested some time and money in order to get some training and go and get a job. That's what my aunt did when her husband died and left her penniless after the insurance company refused to pay her on some technicality (this was in the 1960s). She didn't sit around waiting for a handout---she got off her ass and DID something.

  But the case, she said, has already prevailed in honoring her husband. "His death showed what true faith is," she said.

  Oh lordy-----this kind of statement could just as easily be coming from a widow of a suicide-bomber..........

  I'm somewhat torn on this.......On one hand, her husband died, so she should be entitled to collect his life-insurance. On the other hand, her husband died refusing medical treatment that almost certainly would have saved his life. If this is a clause in the insurance policy, then unfortunately I would say that this sister is SOL. Perhaps she should write a letter to Brooklyn requesting financial assistance, since her husband died needlessly because of their crazy interpretations of the scriptures.